Paul's Use of the Old Testament in Romans and the Purpose of the Epistle

Ott Pecsuk (Kroli Gspr University of the Reformed Church and Hungarian Bible Society)

In my paper I will investigate one aspect of Paul's use of Old Testament in his Epistle to the Romans. I am interested in the question, why Romans is different from Paul's other letters, both in its references to the Old Testament and in its special content. The question of purpose, i. e. why Paul wrote Romans in the first place and why did he write what he wrote, is also connected to my investigation here. Paul's use of Old Testament served more than illustrating certain theological points he wanted to make in his writings. In that he was a good Jewish Biblical scholar, using quite faithfully the interpretational methods of first century Judaism. It seems fairly sure that most of his theological themes came directly from his interpretation of key Old Testament passages. In his treatment of the Old Testament, he shared many of the concerns of other first generation Christians, that is why he used many of the so called testimonial passages referring to Christ. On the other hand, Paul had his own special themes and concerns, often reflecting on special situations in the churches he wrote to. One can only speculate how much these themes were related to his Damascus road experience, but it is certainly true that for the former Pharisee Paul most of them required a Christological reinterpretation of otherwise well-know OT texts. So I approached this investigation with the preconception that most of the important theological themes in Paul's theology had carefully formulated OT proof-texts in their background.

What is special in Paul's treatment of OT in Romans?

First of all the number of quotations. According to Bratcher, there are 59 OT quotations in Romans (a one-purpose catena of several quotations is taken as one), including paraphrases and allusions where the intention of referring to the OT as Scripture is clear. In the whole Corpus Paulinum (including Pastorals and DeuteroPauline letters) there are 134 quotations, so Romans contains 44% of all of Paul's OT quotations. This is a very high proportion if we compare it with the comparative length of Romans in the Corpus Paulinum: 20 %. For some reason OT quotations in Romans were more important for Paul than in his other letters. It is interesting to look at the choice of quoted OT books in Romans: by far the two most important OT books for Paul were Isaiah (mainly chapters 20-29 and 50-59) and Psalms. He quoted them 17 and 16 times. The third most important group of scriptures was the Pentateuch (Genesis 9 times, Exodus 4 times, Leviticus 2 times and Deuteronomy 5 times). The other books of the OT were quoted almost on a casual basis (1Kings 2x, Job 1x, Proverbs 2x, Jeremiah 1x, Hosea 1x, Joel 1x, Habakkuk 1x, Malachi 1x). Both Isaiah and Psalms stand out with their frequency: I assume that their weight in early Christological interpretation and their importance for the self-understanding of Israel as the people of God played an important part for Paul to quote them so often in Romans. If we take a look at the use of Scripture in Paul's other letters, the choice is somewhat similar: Isaiah 21x, Psalms 14x and then Pentateuch 28x (Genesis 8x, Exodus 5x, Leviticus 3x, Numeri 2x, Deuteronomy 10x). It seems that Paul had his own fixed preference of OT books, in Romans he only wanted to use them more often than elsewhere. I assume that one of the reasons for this we must find in the much debated purpose of the letter. This is an evergreen topic of NT scholarship and I do not think that in this paper I can solve the question: why did Paul write Romans? Nevertheless, I think I can contribute to the discussion by taking side in the two main camps of interpreters. Some of them, in their reconstructions put the emphasis on Paul and his circumstances and motives. Others try to find the key of interpreting Romans in the circumstances of the Roman Christians. Again, others try to combine the two perspectives. Here I would like to argue for the necessity to take into consideration also the specific situation of the Roman Christians. I will do this by using the argumentation of one excellent proponent of camp 1, Gnther Bornkamm's article in The Romans Debate and evaluate it in the light of Paul's use of Scripture in Romans compared to his earlier practice in his other letters.

The Bornkamm-thesis

With his article Paul's Last Will and Testament originally published in Beitrge zur evangelischen Theologie (53) and later placed in the Romans Debate (T&T Clark, 1991) Bornkamm contributes to the debate on the character and purpose of Paul's Letter to the Romans. He asks a couple of questions regarding the historical background of Romans. First, he investigates why the Apostle speaks with uneasiness and concern about his forthcoming trip to Jerusalem. In face of the clearly threatening circumstances in the Jerusalem of the late fifties, Bornkamm's next question is: Why did Paul expose himself to such dangers? Would he not have done better to let the delegates of his congregations travel to Jerusalem alone while he himself immediately began his western trip to Rome and Spain? For Bornkamm, all these questions show to the fact that Paul did not understand himself as a mere postman of the collection. Its completion and delivery to the saints in Jerusalem was of utmost importance for him. The meaning of this collection was a controversial issue between him and the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem. While for him, it was a demonstration of the unity of Jews and Gentiles in the Church, for James and the Church leadership in Jerusalem the issue of accepting Gentiles on equal standing was far more complicated in the midst of a radicalizing Jerusalem in the dawn of the Jewish War. The acceptance of the collection and the approval of his continuing mission in the West by the Saints in Jerusalem was very important for Paul, who did not want to begin his new missionary stage in Rome and Spain as a missionary freelancer. With this, Bornkamm sketches the historical background of the writer of Romans. But he also claims that this is almost as much as we can know about the hard historical facts behind Romans. The background and historical situation of the Romans Christians seem much more unclear for Bornkamm. He admits that some general facts are indeed available: the beginnings of the Church in Rome (cf. Ambrosiaster's remark), the ethnic composition of the Roman house churches (cf. the edict of Claudius and Acts 18:2) and the well-known strong relationship the Jewish communities of Jerusalem and Rome. However, says Bornkamm, it is big question how much Paul knew at all about the church in Rome and in what degree he concerned himself in his letter with the definite circumstances there. Bornkamm also rejects the speculations (like Lietzmann's suggestion about a Petrine influence against Paul's gospel) concerning the composition and nature of the specific groups within the Roman congregations. Bornkamm finds Paul's argumentation too vague and general in Romans, especially compared with his description of the historical circumstance in Corinth in 1Corinthians. Paul's polemical sayings can easily be attributed to the diatribe style and one cannot decipher any real historical scenario by even the most scrupulous mirror reading of these passages.

As a solution to the dilemma outlined above, Bornkamm suggests that we find the themes and motifs of Romans already in Paul's earlier letters, especially in Galatians, the two Corinthian letters and Philippians. Therefore he says that Romans should not be read as a timeless theological treatise for it does have a historical background. This background, however, should not be found in the Roman house churches but in Paul's personal history at the time of writing the Letter in Corinth. Bornkamm agrees with T. W. Manson (The Letter to the Romans and Others), who argued that Romans was originally sent to Rome as well as Ephesus with chapter 16 exclusively intended for Ephesus. He also follows Manson in understanding Romans as a letter of final summary of the lessons learned in his mission work in the East of the Mediterranean Sea. Contrary to Manson, however, he thinks that the former controversies and old lessons cannot answer for all the peculiarities of Romans. He suggests that another content-based connection should be sought and established between Romans and the earlier Pauline letters.

Therefore he proposed a threefold thesis: 1. In Romans, there is no clear reference to existing factions in the Roman church(es). 2. The main theme and the many individual themes of Romans consider questions Paul was struggling with at the time of writing Romans. 3. Almost all the themes of Romans have parallels in earlier letters. Here is Bornkamm's list of content parallels between Romans and the earlier Pauline letters:

1. Romans 1:1-7 parallels with Galatians (no exact place given), Philippians 3, 1Thessalonians 1-2 and 2 Corinthians (no exact place given). The issue is Paul's apostolate.

2. Romans 1,16f parallels with Galatians (no exact place given) and Philippians (no exact place given). The issue is justification by faith.

3. Romans 1-3 parallels with Gal 4:1ff and 1Corinthians 1:21. The issue is depravity and misery of all humanity. Slavery under the law and the elemental spirits of the universe, as the background of Paul's teaching of justification by faith.

4. Romans 4 parallels with Galatians 3. The issue is justification by faith shown in the example of Abraham (Gen 15:6).

5. Romans 4:17 parallels with 1Corinthians 1:28 (sic! I think this is a typo and Bornkamm thinks of 2Corinthians 1:9). The issue is the power of God the Creator. In both places it is employed for God as Savior.

6. Romans 5:1-11 parallel with 2Corinthians 5:18f. The issue is God's act of reconciliation in Christ.

7. Romans 5:12-21 parallels with 1Corinthians 15:21,45. The issue is the typology of Adam and Christ.

8. Romans 5:20 parallels with Galatians 3:19. The Law came in to increase trespasses/the law was added because of transgressions.

9. Romans 6 parallels with Galatians 3:27. Baptism and new life.

10. Romans 7:7-25 parallel with 1Corinthians 15:56. A one sentence formulation of a theme in Corinthians, which was later further developed in Romans.

11. Romans 8:15 parallels with Galatians 4:5f. The issue is the spirit of God and the adoption of God's children. Romans 8 also parallels with 1 and 2 Corinthians (no exact place given) in dealing with death in Christ, life in the Spirit and freedom of God's children.

12. Romans 12:4 parallels with 1Corinthians 12-14. Various gifts of the Spirit and the unity of the Church. Paul calls the members to love each other.

13. Romans 13:1-10 parallels with 1Corinthians 14:1ff. The issue is the Christians and the civil powers.

14. Romans 12:11-14 (typo again, it should be 13:11-14) parallel with 1Corinthians 7:29 and 15:51ff. The issue is eschatology.

15. Romans 13:14 parallels with Galatians 3:27. Put on the Lord Jesus Christ.

16. Romans 14-15 parallel with 1Corinthians 8-10. Similar controversy where people can misuse their faith without consideration for their brothers and sisters.

Bornkamm notes that the shared themes in the earlier letters appear in polemical contexts, which are not perceived any more in Romans. The themes are stripped from their occasional dress, carefully reconsidered, more profoundly substantiated and placed in a larger context. According to Bornkamm the polemical tone of Romans is due to Paul's debate with the Jew in general, a representative of humanity in its highest potential, who failed to earn its salvation over against God. Bornkamm admits that the name of his thesis Romans as the Last Will and Testament of Paul can be misleading in many ways: Paul was certainly not preparing for his death. But he was a thinker who developed his thoughts and applied them to new situation, taking them to a higher level of maturity. It was not up to him that the Epistle in fact has become his Last Will and Testament. By implication, Bornkamm does not think Philippians and Filemon were written after Romans.

The Bornkamm-thesis examined

I am going to examine Bornkamm's thesis by applying my above mentioned presupposition (behind most of Paul's important theological ideas there are his important exegetical discoveries from the OT Scriptures). If Bornkamm is right, most of the shared themes should show similar treatment of OT quotations (if they have any). This method probably work in one way: if Paul is using one or more important OT proof texts in his earlier letters to substantiate a point, it is improbable that he later forgets about them when in Romans as Bornkamm suggests he develops them, taking them to a higher, more universal level. If an OT quotation newly appears in Romans, it does not invalidate Bornkamm's thesis, because Paul could easily work on new hermeneutical tasks as time went on. If neither the earlier letters, nor Romans show any OT quotation, I simply comment on the suggested theological connectedness and evaluate Bornkamm's treatment of it. In the following chart I take each of Bornkamm's 16 shared themes and look at them from this special point of view.

Parallel passages according to BornkammContentOT in the Parallel LetterOT in RomansEvaluation

1.

Romans 1:1-7 is parallel with Galatians (1-2),

Philippians 3,

1Thessalonians 1-2 and 2Corinthians (3-4 and 10-12)Paul defends his apostolic call and ministry.

No explicit OT quotation in the parallel passages: In Galatians 1:15 a paraphrase of Isaiah 49:1 and Jeremiah 1:5 (prophetic call from one's mother's womb); in 1Thessalonians 2:4 a verbal allusion to Jeremiah 11:20 ( ). In 2Corinthians 3 there are allusions to Moses and the service of God's glory (3:7 glory; 3:13 veil; 3:16 the veil taken away). In 2Corinthians 4:6 Paul alludes to Gen 1:3 (creation of light = knowledge of God's glory in Paul's heart; - . In 2Corinthians 4:13 Paul quotes Psalm 115:1 (LXX): faith and the proclamation of the gospel are like cause and effect. In relation to the collection, as his apostolic assignment, Paul quotes Proverbs 3:4 in 2Corinthians 8:21 (things honorable, not only in the sight of the Lord but also in the sight of men) In Romans 12:17 this gains a general ethical meaning.No explicit OT quotation in Romans, in 1:1 only a verbal allusion to Isaiah 49:1 ( )In the theme of Paul's apostolate there is no clear OT proof-text that Paul used both in his earlier letters and in Romans. The Damascus-experience helped Paul to understand his apostolic call as a continuation of the prophetic call of Jeremiah and Isaiah. However, besides Romans 1:1, this is detectable only in Galatians. In contrast to the treatment of the topic in Philippians and 2Corinthians, in Romans Paul is not defending his own apostolate and vocation. A partial affirmation for Bornkamm's thesis.

2. and 4. (treated together)

Romans 1:16f (5:1) parallels with Galatians (2-3) and Philippians (3:9)Justification by faith.

Galatians 2:16 quotes Psalm 143:2 (LXX) (cf. Romans 3:20). Galatians 3:6 quotes Gen 15:6 (cf. Romans 4:3 and 4:22). Galatians 3:8 quotes Gen 12:3 (in Abraham shall all the nations be blessed). Galatians 3:11 has a direct quotation from Hab 2:4. In Galatians 3:12 Law is taken as an antithesis of Faith, based on a quotation from Leviticus 18:5 (Law is given, so that one can live in it). Galatians 3:13 argues from a quotation of Deuteronomy 21:33 that Christ has taken the curse of Law upon himself (cursed is everyone that hangs on a tree).

Galatians 3:16 cites Gen 13:15 and the emphasis of the citation is on the singular of (as opposed to the plural of ).

Romans 1: 17 has a direct quotation from Hab 2:4.

Romans 2:6 quotes Psalm 61:13 (LXX) and Proverbs 24:12: who will render to every man according to his works. In the context of Paul's debate with his own people, Romans 2:24 (the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles [because of you]) quotes a slightly modified form of Isaiah 52:5. Romans 3:4 quotes Psalm 50:6 about the righteousness of God (that you might be justified in your words...). In Romans 3:10-18 Paul is using a (pre-Pauline?) catena of quotations from Psalms 13:1-3, 5:10, 139:4, 9:28 (LXX), Isaiah 59:7-8 and Psalm 35:2 (LXX). The issue is total sinfulness of humanity before God. Romans 3:20 quotes an altered version of Psalm 143:2 (LXX): no flesh shall be justified in his sight. This is one of the starting points of the Pauline idea of justification. Romans 4:3 (and 4:22) cites Genesis 15:6 (Abraham believed God and it was reckoned unto him for righteousness). Abraham is the prototype of faith in God. Romans 4:6 quotes Psalm 31:1-2a (LXX) claiming that the condition of being blessed (i. e. reaching one's goal of salvation) is being (reckoned) non guilty. Romans 4:17 quotes Genesis 17:5 about Abraham, the father of many nations. Romans 4:18 quotes Genesis 15:5 (so [many] shall your seed be).Bornkamm's thesis is here in its strongest: the idea of justification by faith is clearly based on a coherent line of argument and a good choice of OT proof-texts. Out of the 10 quotations (the catena in 3:10-18 counted as one) 3 are present in Galatians (Hab 2:4, Psalm 143:2, Gen 15,6), but the Abraham-typology is even more decisive in the argument of both letters. The place of the Abraham-typology is reversed: in Galatians Paul starts with Abraham's example while in Romans it is the final illustration of a long line of argument. The initial argumentation of Galatians about justification by faith is further developed in Romans. It clearly supports Bornkamm's thesis.

3. (It overlaps with points 2. and 4.)

Romans 1-3 parallels with Galatians 4:1f and 1Corinthians 1:21Total depravity and misery of all humanity. Slavery under the law and the elemental spirits of the universe as precondition of justification by faith.Galatians 4:21-31 uses the allegory of Sarah and Hagar from Gen 16 and 21. Galatians 4:27 quotes Isaiah 54:1 (LXX) as a reference to the high honor of Sarah over Hagar. Galatians 4:30 paraphrases Genesis 21:10 arguing that a free child's heritage cannot be shared with a slave child. 1Corinthians 1:21 does not have any OT quotation. Romans 1:23 contains an allusion to Deuteronomy 4:16-18 (prohibition of idol worship).

Bornkamm's thesis cannot be confirmed in light of the supporting OT quotations in Galatians and Romans. There is a serious difference in the lines of argument: in Galatians Paul argues for the huge difference between slavery in following the Law and freedom in following Christ. The pagan world is not at all in view here. In Romans, however, the pagan world with the practices of idol worship and immorality is placed almost on the same level as Torah observance as far as the overall rule of sin is concerned. 1Corinthians 1:21 nicely summarizes the content of Romans 1:18ff and the solution offered in the gospel according to Romans 3. But it lacks any reference to the spiritual slavery in Law observance. One can suspect that the different contexts of the three letters answer for the radically different exposition of the same concept.

5.

Romans 4:17 parallels with 2Corinthians 1:9God's creating power becomes a factor in his Saving character. God is Savior because He is Creator.There is no OT quotation.There is an OT quotation from Genesis 17:5 but it is not directly related to the issue (it explains the status of Abraham).

There is no direct use of OT quotation. Nevertheless, the idea that God is Savior because he is Creator is from the Old Testament (the Creation story was supposedly formed in the Babilonian Captivity). Bornkamm's thesis cannot be confirmed: there is no further developed concept in Romans.

6.

Romans 5:1-11 parallels with 2Corinthians 5:18fGod's act of reconciliation in Christ.There is no OT quotation in 2Corinthians 5:18fThere is no OT quotation in Romans 5:1-11The idea of reconciliation has connections to the OT peace offering ritual as well as to the Greek-Roman understanding of making peace with the angry gods. Since Paul does not mention any OT antecedents, he may think of the latter. 2Corinthians 5:18ff does not yet combine justification and reconciliation, but in Romans 5:1-11 justification is the condition of reconciliation. It is hard to claim that the Romans passage is a further developed version of the 2Corinthians idea. Bornkamm's thesis is neither confirmed, nor challenged.

7.

Romans 5:12-21 parallels with 1Corinthians 15:21,45

Typology of Adam and Christ.1Corinthians 15:45 paraphrases Genesis 2:7 with a pun on the meaning of Adam's Hebrew name (man).In Romans 5:12-21 there is no explicit OT quotation, even though Genesis 3 is obviously behind Paul's thinking.

On the one hand Adam the typos of Christ binds the two passages together, and Paul obviously carried this typology from 1Corinthians to Romans. On the other hand, Adam's meaning in 1Corinthians 15 is giving death to humanity (while Christ brought us life and eventually will bring resurrection). In Romans the emphasis is on Adam's disobedience versus Christ's obedience. The Adam typology is there in both letters, but Paul is talking about two quite different aspects of the typology in the two letters, most probably because of the different situation of the addressees. There is no conceptual development. Bornkamm's thesis is not confirmed here.

8.

Romans 5:20 parallels with Galatians 3:19The Law came in to increase trespasses.Galatians 3:19 does not contain a specific OT quotation. Nevertheless, it is a special interpretation of the Law's role in salvation history: it was added () because of the transgressions ( ).

Romans 5:20 does not have any OT quotations either, but it is also an other, slightly different interpretation of the Law's role: it came in or slipped in () so that trespass might increase ( )

In Galatians Paul is more concerned of the salvation history timeline, where the epoch of the Law was necessary to handle sin. In Romans, the emphasis is put elsewhere: God gave the Law to make things worse as a kind of preparation for abundant grace to appear in Christ. The parallel is there, but with different purposes and emphases. Bornkamm's thesis is not confirmed.

9.

Romans 6(:1-11?) parallels with Galatians 3:27Baptism and new life.There is no OT quotation, paraphrase or allusion in Galatians 3:27.There is no OT quotation or reference in Romans 6:1-11.The concept of being baptized in Christ is further developed in Romans: it is the sign of the new community of Jews and Gentiles. In Galatians Baptism is linked to new life in Christ. In Romans baptism is more linked to death to sin and the consequence is a new life of hope. Here Bornkamm's thesis stands valid.

10.

Romans 7:7-25 parallel with 1Corinthians 15:56. Relationship of the Death-Sin-Law triad. 1Corinthians 15:56 is the summary verse of a catena of OT quotations in the previous verses (15:54-55): Isaiah 25:8 (Theodotion's text) and Hoseah 13:14 (a mixed quotation: the wording follows more or less the LXX but the word order follows the MT text). Most probably Paul quoted from heart. The link between his summary statement and his string of quotations is sting (). The imagery underneath is a scorpion.In Romans 7:7-25 the only explicit OT quotation is 7:7 (You shall not covet) from Exodus 20:17 (or Deuteronomy 5:21) but Genesis 2-3 is also in the background with God's commandment to Adam and Eve not to eat from the tree of Eden and with their following disobedience.The logical connection between Death, Sin and Law is surely there in both 1Corinthians and Romans. However, as far as the illustrative OT quotations show, they are totally different arguments: in 1Corinthians, from the triad Death, Sin and Law the emphasis is on the first two, the powers defeated in Resurrection. In Romans 7 the real issue is the role of the third one, Law. Here Desire () is a provocator of Sin and ultimately Death, and all these play only a secondary role clarifying questions about the culpability of Law. The line of argument in the two letters are completely different, most probably because Paul wanted to say different things to different audiences. Therefore Bornkamm's thesis is not confirmed.

11.

A.

Romans 8:15 parallels with Galatians 4:5f.

B.

Romans 8 also parallels with 1 and 2 Corinthians. (Because of the extremely general nature of the suggested parallelism I do not deal with it in this paper.)A.

The issue is the spirit of God and the adoption of God's children.

B.

Death in Christ, life in the Spirit and freedom of God's childrenA.

There is no OT quotation in Galatians 4:5f.A.

There is no OT quotation in Romans 8:15.A.

The parallelism is clear, even though one cannot see any development from Galatians to Romans. versus is most probably a frequently used clich by Paul. Bornkamm's thesis is not confirmed.

12.

Romans 12:4 parallels with 1Corinthians 12-14 (especially 1Corinthians 12:12).

Various gifts of the spirit and the unity of the Church. Paul calls the members to love each other.In 1Corinthians 14:21 Isaiah 28:11-12 is paraphrased, but it concerns only the speaking in tongues as a prophetic sign fulfilled among the Corinthians. It is not relevant to the issue at hand. There is no OT quotation in Romans 12:4.The idea of the one body of Christ and the various gifts of the Spirit in the church is clearly present in both 1Corinthians and Romans. However, the problem of speaking in tongues is not relevant for Romans. We cannot say that the Pauline teaching of in 1Corinthians is further developed and formulated in more general terms in Romans. There is a topical relationship, but it does not force us to see a literary dependence. Bornkamm's thesis is not confirmed.

13.

Romans 13:1-10 parallels with 1Corinthians 14:1ff (?)

The Christians and the civil powersThere is no OT quotation in 1Corinthians 14:1ff.Romans 13:9a quotes Exodus 20:13-15 (or Deuteronomy 5:17-19,21). Romans 13:9b quotes Leviticus 19:18.The parallel suggested by Bornkamm does not exist: 1Corinthians does not deal with the issue of civil powers, unless a short reference of 1Corinthians 2:6 to is taken as such.

14.

Romans 13:11-14 parallel with 1Corinthians 7:29 and 15:51ff.EschatologyThere is no OT quotation in 1Corinthians 7:29. In 15:54-55 Paul quotes Isaiah 25:8 and Hoseah 13:14 (see 10. above) There is no OT quotation in Romans 13:11-14.The immediacy of Christ's return is echoed in both letters. In 1Corinthians 7:29 this explains Paul's teaching on specific aspects of marriage and family life. In 1Corinthians 15:51ff the real issue is resurrection, Christ's advent is mentioned only as an opening act of the eschatological chain of events. In Romans 13:11-14 the main thrust of the argument is ethics and not eschatology. As many commentators pointed out, the night-day contrast in Romans 13 may well be a reference to the public insecurity of Rome in Nero's time. Christ's return here is only a link to the topic of night-sleeping (death) versus day-being awake (resurrection and eternal life). The meaning of the passage therefore is: those of us who expect resurrection at the end of times must live a morally acceptable life. Romans 13:11-14 is in no way an elaboration of the one-sentence reference of 1Corinthian 7:29. Bornkamm's thesis is not confirmed.

15.

Romans 13:14 parallels with Galatians 3:27. Put on the Lord Jesus Christ.There is no OT quotation in Galatians 3:27.There is no OT quotation in Romans 13:14. (Gal 3:27) and (Rom 13:14) are repetitions of the same concept: figuratively putting on Christ as an armor against the attacks of sins. But in Romans this by no means is a development of an earlier theological theme. It is only an expression that Paul found very expressive and used twice. Bornkamm's thesis is not confirmed.

16.

Romans 14-15 (more precisely 14:1-15:6) parallel with 1Corinthians 8-10. Similar controversy where people can misuse their faith without consideration for their brothers and sisters.There is no OT quotation in 1Corinthians 8 where the problem (meat sacrificed to idols) is described. In illustrating his right to receive support from the churches he had established, Paul in 1Corinthians 9:9 quotes Deuteronomy 25:4 (you shall not muzzle the ox...). 10:5 has an allusion to Numeri 14:16 about the fallen Israelites in the wilderness. 10:7 quotes Exodus 32:6 about the immoral practices of the Israelites before the Golden Calf. 10:20 contains an allusion to Deuteronomy 32:17 about the Israelites, who were in communion with the demons (idols) and not with God. 10:22 also has an allusion to Deuteronomy 32:21 where God accuses his people of provoking him to jealousy by sacrificing to idols. 10:26 summarizes the idea that the whole world belongs to God and therefore every food is suitable for eating. However, this knowledge has to be controlled or suppressed for the sake of the weak brothers and sisters. In Romans 14:11 Paul quotes Isaiah 45:23 with the introductory formula (As I live) of Isaiah 49:18. This is a proof text of the universality of the divine judgment. Romans 15:3 quotes Psalm 68:10 (LXX) as a prophetic utterance of Christ's suffering for others. This citation supports Paul's advice that the strong should bear the failings of the weak. In the two passages there are common themes (e. g. problems with food) and partly overlapping but by no means identical terminology (in 1Corinthians: in Romans: ). There are serious differences in the Pauline argumentation. In 1Corinthians 8-10 the local problem at hand (meat sacrificed to idols) leads first to the broader problem of Christian liberty over against one's brother in the community and then links the argumentation further to problem no. 2 of similar nature: lack of community at the eucharistic gatherings. Most of the OT quotations support either the discussion on Christian liberty or the Pauline midrash on the Exodus story in chapter 10 that serve as a link of the two local problems (meat offered to idols and eucharist).

In Romans, the main issue is lack of unity between Jewish and Gentile Christians. Food problems are just partial symptoms of this. Both groups need to change their views in order to be able to accept each other. The OT quotations here (about the universality of God's judgment, Christ's humble behavior and self-sacrifice) support the argumentation for a change in attitude in both Romans groups, the weak and the strong.

In spite of the superficial agreements and parallelisms in the two texts, 1Corinthians 8-10 and Romans 14-15, both the situation, the Pauline argumentation and the illustrating or supporting OT quotations differ considerably. The only common denominator of the two text is their author. Bornkamm's thesis is not confirmed.

Conclusions

Our investigation for the validity of Gnther Bornkamm's thesis in light of the OT quotations in Paul's Epistle to the Romans and in his earlier letters did show that one should not build his or her interpretation of Romans on the interpretation of the other letters and on Paul's earlier experiences in mission. The main themes of Romans show considerable independence both in themselves and in their relationship to attached OT quotations. The issues Paul is concerned with in Romans may have been raised in earlier letters but are put in completely different light as Paul's situation changed and he addressed a congregation that he did not know personally but at the same time knew very well through his co-workers, hearsay or non-extant correspondence. Paul's changed circumstances contributed to the circumstances of the Roman churches and resulted a very special theological amalgam, called Epistle to the Romans. In the chart above we did not find pre-formulated themes with attached OT proof-texts. Only in three issues: Paul's apostolate, justification by faith and Baptism-New Life could we accept Bornkamm's suggestion, that Paul relied on earlier treatments of the themes at hand. In Romans, out of the 16 thematic parallels suggested by Bornkamm, 10 showed full independence of argumentation from earlier letters and consequently indicated an addressee-focused purpose and a specific background behind the Epistle. This is the background that still needs to be further explored.

D. J. Harrington, Paul's Use of the Old Testament in Romans. in http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 (accessed: 01 August 2014) p. 7. R. N. Longenecker, Prolegomena to Paul's Use of Scripture in Romans. in BBR 7 (1997). p. 168.

Cf. C. H. Dodd, According to the Scriptures. London: Nisbet and Co.,1953.

Harrington, 7. Cf. Longenecker's article where he contrasts the Damascus-material (e. g. Romans 5-8) with the Scripture-based material (Romans 1-4 and 9-15).

R. G. Bratcher, Old Testament Quotations in the New Testament. UBS Technical Helps Series. New York: United Bible Socities, 1984. p. 37-48.

It is very difficult to differentiate between proper quotations, paraphrases and allusions in the whole NT but especially in the Pauline corpus. The modern concept of quoting someone or something with a quotation mark was unknown then, as were the strictly written sources. Oral culture must have been an important factor is quoting Scriptures freely or imprecisely and with a great variety even within the work of one and the same NT author. Yet, with a careful reading of the text we can distinguish between someone's casual coloring his or her speech with scriptural reminiscenses and the intentional citations, parapharases and allusions. For more on Paul's citation technique see E. E. Ellis, Paul's Use of the Old Testament. Edinburgh and London: Oliver and Boyd, 1957.

I included them because even though some of these may have been not written by Paul himself, all of them clearly depend on Paul theologically and literally. Every other type of selection would be more arbitrary.

For one possible solution to this cf. Longenecker, p.168.

J. E. Walters, How Beautiful are my Feet: The Structure and Function of Second Isaiah References in Paul's

Letter to the Romans. in RQ 52 no. 1 (2010). p. 30.

D. A. Oss, A Note on Paul's Use of Isaiah in BBR 2 (1992) p. 109.

Other OT books quoted in the rest of Corpus Paulinum: 2Samuel 1x, Job 2x, Proverbs 3x, Jeremiah 2x, Ezekiel 2x, Daniel 1x, Hosea 1x, Habakkuk 1x, Zechariah 1x.

Prof. Carl. R. Holladay raised my attention to the fact of a the similar canonical preference at the Qumran Community: In Qumran Pentateuch, Isaiah, Minor Prophets and Psalms enjoyed special authority and formed nucleus of a bipartite canon of Law and Prophets, with Psalms included as a prophetic book. Cf. Julio Trebolle A 'Canon within a Canon' in Revue de Qumran 75:19.3 (2000), p. 383-99.

As I did in my doctoral dissertation: Pl s a rmaiak. A Rmai levl kortrtneti olvasata. [Paul and the Romans. A Historical Reading of the Epistle to the Romans] Budapest: Klvin Kiad, 2009.

The Romans Debate, p. 17.

Op. Cit. p. 18.

Op. Cit. p. 21.

Op. Cit. p. 25.

For the debate on the role of Apostles see F. Hahn, Der Apostolat im Urchristentum. Seine Eigenart und seine Voraussetzungen. in Kerygma un Dogma 20 (1974) 54-77. and F. C. Agnew, The Origin of the NT Apostle-Concept: A Review of Research in JBL 105 (1986) 75-96.

Adolf Schlatter understood justification by faith as the central theme of Pauls Letter to the Romans (Gottes Gerechtigkeit: Ein Kommentar zum Rmerbrief. Stuttgart: Calwer Verlag, 1935), see also P. Stuhlmacher, Der Brief an die Rmer. NTD Band 6. Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1998, M. Seifrid, justification by Faith. Leiden: Brill, 1992, pp. 77-135 and Christ, Our Righteousness. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2000, pp. 35-47.

To the textual problems of the Habakkuk-quotation cf. Longenecker, pp. 145-68; J. A. Emerton, The Textual and Linguistic Problems of Habbakkuk ii. 4-5 in JTS 28 (1977) p. 10 and J. G. Janzen, Habakkuk 2:2-4 in the Light of Recent Philological Advances in HTR 73 (1980) p. 62 and pp. 70-76.

Cf. D-A. Koch, Die Schrift als Zeuge des Evangeliums.Untersuchungen zur Verwendung und zum Verstndnis der Schrift bei Paulus. Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1986. p. 111.

Cf. C. D. Stanley, Paul and the Language of Scripture. Citation Technique in the Pauline Epistles and Contemporary Literature. SNTSMS 74. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992. pp. 84-85 and S-L. Shum, Pauls Use of Isaiah in Romans: A Comparative Study of Pauls Letter to the Romans and the Sibylline and Qumran Sectarian Texts. WUNT 156. tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002. p. 179.

For Pauls motives here see E. Ksemann, Commentary on Romans. Trans. G. W. Bromiley. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980. p. 81.

For the origin and role of the catena see M. C. Albl, And Scripture Cannot Be Broken: The Form and Function of the Early Testimonia Collections. NovTSup 96. Leiden: Brill, 1999. pp. 172-174. see also Koch pp. 181-183 and Shum pp. 181-184.

Ellis (p. 153) categorizes it as an allusion.

Cf. Koch, p. 133.

Op. Cit. p. 222.

Op. Cit. p. 261.

See J. A. Fitzmyer, Romans: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 33. New York: Doubleday, 1993. p. 283.

R. Jewett, Romans. A Commentary. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007. p. 333.

A. J. M. Wedderburn, The Theological Structure of Romans v.12 in v.12 in NTS 19 (1972-73) pp. 340-54.

Bornkamm does not give the exact verses.

For alternative suggestions cf. Jewett p. 447. note 64. Elsewhere I argue for Pauls deliberate referring to both possible source texts: O. Pecsuk, Pl apostol s a kvnsg. A Rm 7,7-12 mint a tizedik parancsolat s a bneset exegzise. in A tz ige. Tanulmnyktet Marjovszky Tibor tiszteletre, 60. szletsnapja alkalmbl. Szerk. Hdossy-Takcs Eld. Debrecen: Debreceni Reformtus Hittudomnyi Egyetem, 2013. pp. 151-167.

Bornkamm's suggested reference is unintelligible for me.

See Koch, pp. 184-185. Stanley, p. 177 does not take it as a citation and instead calls it typical biblical language.

For alternative interpretations of the purpose of the quotation see A. T. Hanson, Jesus Christ in the Old Testament. London: SPCK, 1965. pp. 153-155.

20